Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 07:07:27 -0800 (PST) From: "Pedro F. Giffuni" <giffunip@tutopia.com> To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standard compiler?) Message-ID: <342292.89033.qm@web32703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <61484.71762.qm@web32708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20090111044448.GC5661@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
=0A=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0A=0A> On 2009-Jan-09 19:22:38 -080=
0, "Pedro F. Giffuni" wrote:=0A> >- Remove gcc from the base and make the c=
ompilation depend on a packaged C.. =0A> somewhat like was made with perl.=
=0A> =0A> Not quite the same.=A0 All the build{world,kernel} tools that use=
d perl=0A> were re-written in sh/awk/C so perl is not required to build/ins=
tall=0A> the base system (this was a prerequisite for removing perl).=A0 IM=
O, the=0A> FreeBSD base system should come complete with the necessary tool=
s to=0A> build/install itself.=0A> =0A=0AOK, I quite agree it's not the sam=
e as perl: C is not something we cannot depend on.=0A=0AThere was, however,=
the idea that the installation could be more packaged oriented. The C comp=
iler gets in the way of installing a=A0lighter client. Many users don't nee=
d a C compiler as they can use pre-packaged stuff=A0and there's also the is=
sue that we don't really do all that much in-tree development of the develo=
pment tools.=0A=0APedro.=0A=0A=0A
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?342292.89033.qm>